Dismissed

B.Mooventhan v. the State Rep by Its

Madras HC24 Nov 2022CRL MP/17662/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Bench of TNHC dismissed a petition by a convicted POCSO offender seeking suspension of sentence and bail pending appeal. The Court cited Supreme Court precedents, noting the serious nature of sexual offences against minors, and held that this was not a fit case to grant bail.

What did the court decide?

Petition for suspension of sentence and bail dismissed; main appeal posted for disposal in second week of Dec 2022.

B.Mooventhan Vs the State Rep by Its — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.M.P.No.17662 of 2022 in Crl.A.No.147 of 2021

¶2

Crl.M.P.No.17662 of 2022 in Crl.A.No.147 of 2021

¶3

P.N.PRAKASH, J. and G.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.

¶4

ORDER

¶5

(Made by P.N.PRAKASH, J. )

¶6

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to suspend the sentence imposed on him by judgment and order dated 22.10.2020 passed in S.C.No.123 of 2014 on the file of the Sessions Court, (Special Court for the Exclusive Trial of Cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012), Nagapattinam and to enlarge him on bail, pending disposal of the above appeal.

¶7

The petitioner, who was an accused in S.C.No.123 of 2014 before the Sessions Court, (Special Court for the Exclusive Trial of Cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012), Nagapattinam, was convicted and sentenced as follows on 22.10.2020:

¶8

Page 1 of 6

¶9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶10

Crl.M.P.No.17662 of 2022 in Crl.A.No.147 of 2021

¶11

*Provision under which* *convicted*	*Sentence*
Section 6 r/w 5 (f), (l) & (m) of the POCSO Act (2 counts)	Rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo two years simple imprisonment(2 counts).
Section 10 r/w 9 (l) & (m) of the POCSO Act (1 count)	Seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo one year simple imprisonment(1 count).
The aforesaid sentences were	ordered to run concurrently.

¶12

Challenging the aforesaid conviction and sentences, the

¶13

petitioner has filed Crl.A.No.147 of 2021 with the instant criminal miscellaneous petition seeking suspension of sentence and bail.

¶14

Heard Mr.S.Senthilvel, learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶15

Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State.

¶16

This is the second petition seeking suspension of sentence and

¶17

bail and the earlier bail petition in Crl.M.P.No.4274 of 2021 was dismissed by this Court on 29.07.2021.

¶18

Page 2 of 6

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

Crl.M.P.No.17662 of 2022 in Crl.A.No.147 of 2021

¶21

It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was a school

¶22

teacher and he had sexually abused two girls viz . P.W.6 and P.W.7, who were studying in V standard.

¶23

We scanned the evidence of P.W.6 and P.W.7 and found that they have implicated the petitioner and hence, it cannot be stated that the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court is perverse.

¶24

At this juncture, pertinent it is to point out that the Supreme Court, in Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi)¹ ,

¶25

has considered Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab² and has held as follows:

¶26

“30. . . . . .In the above cases, it has been observed

¶27

that once a person has been convicted, normally, an appellate court will proceed on the basis that such person is guilty. It is no doubt true that even thereafter, it is open to the appellate court to suspend the sentence in a given case by recording reasons. But it is well settled, as observed in Vijay Kumar

¶28

1 (2008) 5 SCC 230

¶29

2 1977 SCC (Cri) 559

¶30

Page 3 of 6

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

Crl.M.P.No.17662 of 2022 in Crl.A.No.147 of 2021

¶33

[(2002) 9 SCC 364 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1195 : JT 2002 Supp (1) SC 60] that in considering the prayer for bail in a case involving a serious offence like murder punishable under Section 302 IPC, the Court should consider all the relevant factors like the nature of accusation made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the desirability of releasing the accused on bail after he has been convicted for committing serious offence of murder, etc. It has also been observed in some of the cases that normal practice in such cases is not to suspend the sentence and it is only in exceptional cases that the benefit of suspension of sentence can be granted.”

¶34

In view of the above reasoning and taking into consideration the serious nature of allegations against the petitioner, we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case to grant suspension of sentence and bail to the petitioner and accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands dismissed. The Registry is directed to post the main appeal for final disposal in the second week of December 2022.

¶35

(P.N.P.,J.) (G.C.S.,J.)

¶36

Page 4 of 6

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

Crl.M.P.No.17662 of 2022 in Crl.A.No.147 of 2021

24.11.2022

nsd

1.The Sessions Judge, (Special Court for the Exclusive Trial of Cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012), Nagapattinam.

¶43

2.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Cuddalore.

¶44

3.The Inspector of Police, Sirkazhi Police Station, Nagapattinam District.

¶45

4.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai – 600 104.

¶46

Page 5 of 6

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

Crl.M.P.No.17662 of 2022 in Crl.A.No.147 of 2021

¶49

P.N.PRAKASH, J. and G.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.

¶50

nsd

¶51

Crl.M.P.No.17662 of 2022 in Crl.A.No.147 of 2021

¶52

24.11.2022

¶53

Page 6 of 6

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

B.Mooventhan v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Mooventhan v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chemical Contruction Company Vs Union of India, Rep. by Its

Murali Krishna Chakrala Vs the Deputy Director

V.Lakshmi Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Lavanya Vs the Superintendent of Police

Balamurugan Vs State Rep by the Superintendent of Police

R.Vanitha Vs the Superintendent of Police